Allahabad High Court
Smt. Nivedita Mohta vs State Of U.P. And Anr on 4 February, 2020
Author: Raj Beer Singh
Bench: Raj Beer Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 64 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4209 of 2020 Applicant :- Smt. Nivedita Mohta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 30.11.2019 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No.2, Hathras in Criminal Revision No. 28 of 2018 (Nivedita Mohta Vs. State of U.P. and another) as well as order dated 09.02.2018 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras in Criminal Case No. 283/2012/2015 (Nivedita Vs. Devendra Mohta) arising out of Case Crime No. 185 of 2015, Police Station Hathras Gate, District Hathras.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that opposite party no. 2 has lodged the FIR in Case Crime No. 185 of 2015, under Section 294 of IPC and 66 of I.T. Act but after investigation, police have submitted final report. Protest petition filed by applicant against final report was dismissed vide order dated 09.02.2018 by the court below without considering the statement of witnesses and material on record and final report was accepted. Being aggrieved, applicant has preferred a Revision against order dated 09.02.2018 before Session Judge, however, the Revision was also dismissed vide impugned order dated 30.11.2019. It was submitted that learned Revisional Court has not considered material on record and without examining the relevant material and law, Revision was dismissed. Learned counsel submitted that impugned order dated 09.02.2018 as well as impugned order of Revisional Court dated 30.11.2019 are against facts and law. The findings recorded by court below rejecting protest petition of applicant are perverse and bad in eyes of law. Learned counsel further submitted that at the stage of cognizance even the suspicion of commission of an offence is sufficient for taking cognizance and summoning accused persons. It has been submitted that impugned orders are liable to be quashed.
On the other hand, it has been submitted by learned A.G.A. that after the investigation, police have submitted final report, which was accepted by the court of C.J.M. by order dated 09.02.2018, after examination of entire facts and material collected during investigation. Learned C.J.M. has assigned appropriate reasons for rejection of protest petition of applicant and for acceptance of final report. Similarly, Revisional Court has also examined entire relevant material in accordance with law and a reasoned order dated 30.11.2019 was passed. There is no illegality, perversity or any other material irregularity in said impugned orders.
Perusal of the record shows that C.J.M. Hathras has considered relevant material and found that protest petition is liable to be rejected while final report is based on material on record. It was found that both the parties belong to the same family and that opposite party no. 2 is aged about 65 years. Several cases were pending between the parties on issue of partition of property. During investigation, Munnalal Mohta, who is brother of husband of complainant, has also stated that allegations made against opposite party no. 2 are false. In the same manner, learned lower revisional court has also considered entire relevant facts and material in accordance with law and Revision was dismissed after assigning appropriate reasons.
It is well settled that Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure confers upon the High Court inherent powers to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The power under section 482 Cr. P.C. is to be invoked only in exceptional cases rather in rarest of rare cases where exercise of such extraordinary power is required to prevent the abuse of process of law or to secure the ends of justice. In the present case, as already discussed earlier, no such exigencies indicating any miscarriage of justice has been shown.
In view of aforesaid, it is clear that no such illegality, perversity, impropriety or any other irregularity could be pointed out in above stated impugned orders so as to warrant exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 4.2.2020 Mohit